The full agenda for the meeting (as of 6 June 2016) is sum­marised below:

 Agenda papers for this meeting are available on the IASB's website.

The report is not legally binding but is now an EP resolution and will serve as guidance and reference in future EU law-making processes.

The presentation and discussion took place yesterday. There is a video recording of the discussion available (link to EP website, 17 minutes, free choice of language). During the discussion, the only contributions of note were the introduction by the ECON rapporteur (Theodor Stolojan) introducing the report and the response by the representative of the European Commission (Christos Stylianidis). The other contributors merely repeated known sentiments or did not speak to the topic.

In his response, Commissioner Stylianidis, who spoke on behalf of Commissioner Jonathan Hill, pointed at the Commission's own evaluation that had led to an overall positive assessment of the situation, welcomed the intended formation of an EP permanent IFRS team, and mentioned the EC comment letter to the IFRS Foundation (link to IASB website) on their review of the structure and effectiveness of the IFRS Foundation, which had already picked up on many of the items presented in the report. Mr Stylianidis noted that the Commission has concluded that currently there is no need for legislative changes, however, better cooperation, coordination and communication between all parties involved would be beneficial.

In today's vote (by roll call), the European Parliament carried the resolution.

The webinar — hosted by IASB board members Martin Edelmann and Sue Lloyd, along with IASB senior technical manager Joanna Yeoh — responds to some companies’ concerns about the timing of the implementation of IFRS 9 Financial Instruments and the forthcoming insurance contracts standard and the related consequences. The IASB has confirmed that it will issue amendments to IFRS 4 that:

• give companies that issue insurance contracts the option to remove from profit or loss the volatility that may be caused by certain changes in the measurement of financial assets when applying IFRS 9 before the new insurance contracts standard; and
• give companies whose predominant activities are insurance-related an optional temporary exemption from applying IFRS 9 until 2021.

The webinar and slides are available on the IASB's website.

The CC is consulting on these changes for several reasons. These include the recent changes in thresholds for audit and the preparation of consolidated group accounts; the results of the consultation on matters of material significance that must be reported to regulators; and changing expectations of the charity sector following the 2015 collapse of Kid's Company.

The proposals include:

• three new Directions about:
     - examiner independence;
     - conflicts of interest and disclosure of related party transactions; and
     - financial sustainability and going concern;
• new simpler guidance for each Direction;
• extending independent examination to consolidated (group) accounts;
• a new simpler format for the examiner’s report;
• changes to the reporting of matters of material significance (in a separate consultation);
• new guidance on the reporting of ‘relevant matters’; and
• a plain English approach which makes it clearer that the guidance is expected practice not simply recommended practice.

The proposed changes are intended to come into force for periods ending on or after 31 March 2017. Comments are requested by 30 September 2016.

The full consultation and press release can be obtained from the Charity Commission website.

The Update reports on the EFRAG Board meeting on 13 May and the EFRAG Technical Expert Group (EFRAG TEG) meeting on 26-27 May.  The Update also lists EFRAG publications issued in May:

• EFRAG’s draft endorsement advice on Clarifications to IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers; and 
• EFRAG’s feedback statement on its discussion paper The Statement of Cash Flows: Issues for Financial Institutions. 

Please click to download the May EFRAG Update from the EFRAG website.

The guide sets out five steps for boards of British companies to follow to ensure that their company:

1. embeds the responsibility to respect human rights into its culture, knowledge and practices;
2. identifies and understands its salient, or most severe, risks to human rights;
3. systematically addresses its salient, or most severe, risks to human rights and provides for remedy when needed;
4. engages with stakeholders to inform its approach to addressing human rights risks; and
5. reports on its salient, or most severe, human rights risks and meets regulatory reporting requirements. 

A pdf version of the guide can be obtained from the Equality and Human Rights Commission website.

The GSSB is currently working on transitioning the G4 Guidelines into a new set of modular, interrelated GRI Standards that can then be updated individually and indepent of each other to ensure that the standards will remain relevant in today’s rapidly-evolving sustainability reporting landscape.

The second set of exposure drafts comprises 30 topic-specific draft standards each covering a separate sustainability topic such as anti-corruption, emissions, biodiversity, or child labor. They are open for comment until 17 July 2016. Please click to access the exposure drafts and a corresponding press release on the GRI website.

The eight new proposed IVS are:

• IVS 101 Scope of Work,
• IVS 102 Investigation and Compliance,
• IVS 103 Reporting,
• IVS 200 Businesses and Business Interests,
• IVS 300 Plant and Equipment,
• IVS 400 Real Property Interests,
• IVS 410 Development Property, and
• IVS 500 Financial Instruments.

The exposure drafts can be accessed through the press release on the IVSC website and are open for commnt until 31 August 2016.

The earlier exposure drafts published in April can also still be commented on (until 7 July 2016).

FRS 102 explicitly states that where a loan agreement contains a provision requiring the borrower to compensate the lender for early repayment in the event that the current market interest rates are lower than the fixed rate specified in the agreement, this does not stop the loan from being classified as ‘basic’.  As well as including such provisions, in the social housing sector, loan agreements can also include provisions for the lender to pay the borrower should the market interest rate be above the fixed rate in the agreement. 

FRS 102 does not specifically address this latter scenario and there are divergent views on whether such loans can be classified as ‘basic’.  The FRC accepts that “FRS 102 does not explicitly address every transaction, other event or condition that an entity may need to account for, and preparers and auditors will need to apply judgement in the application of FRS 102” and highlights that this might lead to diversity in practice in certain areas.  It concedes that in certain circumstances, different interpretations of the standard might occur and indicates that “the classification of loans with two-way compensation clauses appears to be one such case”. 

Concluding the FRC comments:

In relation to this specific issue, the FRC notes that diversity in practice may arise and reminds preparers that FRS 102 (paragraph 8.6) requires disclosure about judgements that have had a significant effect on the amounts recognised in the financial statements. Looking forward, the FRC is starting work on the triennial review of FRS 102, and expects to reconsider the conditions in paragraph 11.9 as part of that process. As well as considering this compensation clause, this will also include consideration of any other issues raised in relation to the application, in practice, of paragraph 11.9. As a result any amendments will reflect wide experience of applying FRS 102. The FRC expects to consult on any proposed amendments early in 2017, which would be effective from 1 January 2019, although early application may be available.

The press release is available on the FRC website.

In the paper the ICAEW provides a review of the current state of the assurance market and invites comments on five propositions on where and how it feels assurance should be taken next.

The propositions, which are expanded upon in the paper, are:

1. Rather than focusing on the annual report – or any other single report of an organisation – we should think about the right way to use assurance to meet the needs of the organisation itself.
2. The role of the board in determining the need for assurance, internally and externally, is vital to understanding the future of assurance.
3. Getting the right assurance in the right place is essential. This means asking the right questions about risks and information flows, and in a complex organisation it means keeping track of the situation with an assurance map.
4. Assurance can be provided over risk disclosures or forward-looking information, even if the question asked is different from ‘is this true and fair?'.
5. Assurance can add value to narrative information using current principles and techniques, and the skilled judgement of preparers and assurance providers.

Comments on the paper are invited until 22 July 2016.

The thought leadership paper and details of how to comment are available on the ICAEW website.